CADRE Comments

At some point in the past apologists have argued laws require a law giver. Thus natural law requires a creator.C.S. Lewis for example. [1] Lewis was arguing in terms of moral law, not natural law. Atheists are fond of arguing that law of nature are not like laws passed by legislatures: Those set by a law giver, like the ones passed by the legislative branch, are prescriptive, while the ones humans develop through observation and analysis are descriptive. As the laws of nature scientists have discovered are descriptive, it would be invalid to deduce that a law giver must exist.There's a difference between prescriptive and descriptive [2] ... Do the “laws of nature” or “physical laws” actually govern the way the universe behaves, or are these merely convenient descriptions of our observations about the way the universe behaves? Scientists, and atheists, sometimes write as if the former were true, and sometimes as if it were nonsense and the latter must be the truth. Others hav...

  While I never served in the military, it is my understanding that basic military training, aka “boot camp” is one of the most arduous and grueling things one can go through. Or, to put it simply, it is hell. First, there’s the physical aspect – soldiers need to be in good physical shape to be able to perform the tasks expected of them. To that end, to get through basic training (not including specialized training for different services) requires the following: Two minutes of push-ups, two minutes of sit-ups and a timed, two-mile run. The Army bases scores on recruits’ age, gender, number of repetitions or amount of time taken for each component. To complete boot camp, recruits must score at least 50 points in each event, for a total of 150 points. For men ages 17 to 21, that means performing at least 35 push-ups and 47 sit-ups, as well as running two miles in no more than 16 minutes and 36 seconds. Male recruits ages 22 to 26 have to complete a minimum of 31 push-ups, 43 sit-...

I am going to re explore this quote by Pixie,whichI used last time because I think it typifies most atheist's views of prayer: If you get cancer, you can either pray for God to cure you or go see a doctor. Today, going to see a doctor has a decent chance of leading to you surviving. Praying will not improve your chances at all. The original arguments of Christianity were the miracles; the healings performed by Jesus and later his apostles. Nowadays, these "miracles" are being done by science, and those doing it in Jesus' name are routinely shown to be charlatans. Is it any wonder young people are not impressed? [1] What I see here, in addition to out and out doubt, is the tendency to think of God's healing power as a competitor for  modern medicine. God did not set out to heal all sick nor did he offer his healing as a response to the human condition. Miracles are signs as Px says but he abandons this insight right away and sees them as an attempt to heal all si...

  I wouldn't want to be a Cossack / headed for that Palestine Road / Thinking about what's written in the Word of God /About the things that he's foretold  No, I wouldn't want to be there, down Jerusalem way No, I wouldn't want to be there, headed for my grave   I wouldn't want to march with the comrades / when they enter Israel / Headed straight into the fiery wrath of God /And finding no escape from, well   I wouldn't want to be there, down Jerusalem way No, I wouldn't want to be there, headed for my grave.  ~ Love Song, “ The Cossack Song ”  Back in the late 70s or early 80s, I played drums in a Christian rock band. While we had fun and played a few coffee houses and youth group gatherings, we didn’t come close to hitting the big time. One of the songs that we performed was “ The Cossack Song ” by Love Song – a song that played on the theory then in vogue that the army of the Soviet Union would invade Israel leading to the battle in ...

Pixie has often and repeatedly made an old argument used by internet atheists, that religion in general and Christianity in particular are primarily believed by people because their parents handed it down to them, This serves two functions, it allows  him to assert that the intellectual content of reasons for faith are weak (aka no rational warrant) and this will lead to decline of the belief. As Pixie has put it:  Personally, I think it [level of commitment to Christianity] can only go down, as the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture. As the culture becomes less Christian, less Christians will be raised...The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age...Sure, there are other factors. Clearly Christianity got...

  What exactly is this thing that we call “the Spirit of Christmas”? We’ve all heard of it, and most people certainly try to get into the Spirit of Christmas (or the Christmas Spirit) as we head into Christmas. We know that Scrooge knew how to keep Christmas all the year round, which is presumably the Spirit of Christmas, but what exactly is it that he kept? G.K Chesterton tried to define the Spirit of Christmas in his book, The Thing: Why I am a Catholic , but found it was easier to describe how people falsely try to create the Spirit of Christmas by keeping the externals while ignoring the essentials. I have rather rashly undertaken to write of the Spirit of Christmas; and it presents a preliminary difficulty about which I must be candid. People are very curious nowadays in their way of talking about “the spirit” of a thing. There is, for example, a particular sort of prig who is always lecturing us about the spirit of true Christianity, apart from all names and forms. As far...

this is a repeat of an article I wrote a few years ago in answer to the same question: is increase in "no reloigous affiliation" a sign religion is in decline? It is true the figures in this essay were from five years ago. But atheists have been doing this same trick sine 1998 when I got into apologetics on the net. Every few years they dust off these numbers and try to make a big thing of a 3% decline. Atheism is not increasing as of Nov 2015 By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - November 29, 2015 The atheists propaganda machine is at it again. Another spate of articles based loosely upon a Pew study talking about Christianity is in decline. As I write it is Nov. 3,2015. They are still failing to distinguish between affiliation and belief in God. The Pew Study says belief in God is holding steady what is declining is affiliation with organized religion. The amalgamation none as "none" (as in religious affiliation: none) is what is growing and while those do incl...

  Let’s face it: secularism is growing in the United States. There, I said it. I don’t like it, but even a casual glance at the religious landscape over the course of my lifetime demonstrates that the number of people attending worship services on Sunday mornings (or alternative days) has declined from the 1960s or even the 1970s. While the increase in “no religious affiliation” is real, it is my belief that it is unlikely that the rise in the “no religious affiliation” crowd is due to some overwhelming acceptance of atheism. While there are some atheists who make reasonable arguments against theism, most of the fare available on the Internet are rather humdrum arguments that have long ago been answered. An in-depth evaluation of these arguments may convince the already committed, but would have little impact on someone seeking truth. Rather, it seems to me that the real cause for the increase of the “no affiliation” crowd is the rise in a general indifference about religious...

This is an argument I recently had on a atheist web site, Here"You" is the atheist AndyF2. Dialogue with AndyF2 aka"you"   https://oncreationism.blogspot.com/2020/06/hinmans-cosmological-argument.html my argument 1. Something exists. 2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances. 3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes 4. Therefore, there exists at least one  eternal thing 5. The  one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things 6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God." 7. Therefore God exists. The False Dichotomy: YOU: "The first issue is that 2 is a false dichotomy. For example, it may be that the universe appeared spontaneous. Joe objects to this because there is no precedence for things appearing spontaneous...